THE UGLY STEP CHILD . . .

In another thread, i noted that while we were ostensibly engaged in a war on terrorism, we went to war in Iraq--my implication being that this (the Iraq War) was what i characterized before the war as a dangerous side venture--we had done Afghanistan on the cheap, and that it "remains the ugly step child of the administration's foreign policy."

Things like this continue to convince me that this bunch has lost interest in Aghanistan, because it doesn't pay off like Iraq might (or perhpas already does), and that their committment to fighting a war on terror has never been more than policy facade designed to make the Prez looked determined and relentlessly devoted to our security. Of course, the war on terrorism also provides an excuse for the Reverend Ashcroft to demand broader scope to ignore the basic rights of citizens--just another plus to a policy charade.

Meanwhile, there is so much that needs done in Afghanistan, and, were i a gambling man, i'd wager good money that it's left to simmer until the pot burns up.



Times article here[/color]

Feel free to disagree, of course; i am interested in your thoghts. I fully expect to be excoriated, perhaps with needless personal invective, by those with radically differing points of view.